Search This Blog

A place for English speaking sofrim (scribes), magihim (examiners), rabbis and vendors of Stam (Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzah scrolls) from around the world to communicate, share ideas, ask questions and offer support and advice.

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Shel Rosh

I received a pair of parshiot where pasha of shema and vehaya im Shomoah in
tefillin Shel Rosh still connected in one piece of Klaf.

The Baal Magiah said its Bedieved and sends me to Simen LAMED BEIS Seif BEIS and to the Mishna Brura there.
I asked few Sofrim Moomchim and I can’t get a clear answer if the tefillin are
kosher lechatchila or not.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

I may add, that this is something very common when we receive new parashiot. In about 10% of the cases I find that Shema' is still connected to Vehaya Im Shamo'a. As R. Moshe indicates all we need to do is to separate them before inserting them into the batim.

That is not the pshat in the MB. The MB is explaining that shel rosh should be written on 4 parchments lechatchila, IE when completed and prepared to put in the compartments they should be 4 seperate pieces, and not 1 klaf as a Yad. But bdieved even written all on 1 klaf and not seperated, and inserted in and out of the 4 batim of the rosh, is kosher bdieved as referred to in SA 32:47.But if at the time of the writing they are still connected is not important.

Also, the lechatchila and bdieved mentioned is not what the oilam calls ""bdieved" (IE half-pasul). Rather a directive lechatchila how the sofer should write, but once written otherwise is fully accepted.

I wrote this before reading HaRav Moshe's post but I believe this proves the svara behind his point. Rav Moshe, would you agree with my reasoning here?

I would venture to suggest that it is mashma from the MB in seif Bet that it's bediavad if the parshiyot are inserted in the shel rosh without having been completely cut, but if they are cut and separated fully then I would infer from MB it is lechatchila. Here is why.

This states that if the 4 parshiyot are "katuv" on 4 separate klafim then that is what is required lechatichila. I would argue that by MB using the word "Katuv" he does not mean that at the time of writing they are writting on 4 separate klafim, but rather that the writing is on 4 separate klafim (ie possibly at the time of insertion or wearing of the tefillin, but definitely after the time of writing).

The MB is medayek in the lashon of the gemara that the word "kotvim" means the ink is black at the time of writing and the word "katuv" means it becomes black after the time of writing. Hence the MB is medayek that the word Katuv refers to the state of the tefillin or klafim sometime after the time of writing.

Back to the 4 klafim - this would seem to indicate that if the MB says the "parshiyot [of the shel rosh] must be katuvim on 4 klafim (and not kotvim) lechatichila" this would mean that even after the time of writing, if they exist on 4 separate klafim they are still lechatchila.

This could possibly be supported by the fact that at the end of the MB quote at the top he refers to seif 47 with respect to the implied bediavad kashrut of parshiyot that are not on 4 separate klafim.

Whether the MB here is talking about cutting them completely so they're separated or just cutting in between each parasha so they're still connected at the bottom (like Rashi says about Rebbi's shita in Menachot 34b) could be debatable but I think he's talking about the second one, ie just cutting in between each parasha so they're still connected at the bottom because the S"A is paskening according to Chachamim who say you don't have to cut them at all, which is more lenient than Rebbi. MB comes and adds that kol shekein if they have space between them..... which is the lashon Rebbi uses in being machshir bediavad (which according to Rashi is when they're cut at the top and connected at the bottom). This I think could also be inferred from the rest of the MB in that seif katan. If this is so, then I would say it supports the MB's shita that if they were to be completely cut and separated they would even be lechatchila.

בס''ד

Disclaimer:

Content and opinions expressed on this forum should be viewed as conjecture only and do not necessarily represent a final halachic ruling (unless otherwise stated). One should not use this forum as a substitute for proper "shimush" or a proper rabbinic ruling.

Acceptance of someone as a member on this Forum shall not be deemed as a validation of their halachic qualifications and competence to be a sofer. This Forum does not assume any responsibility for such certification.